What People Want

If we were to take Hinduism as a whole -- its vast literature, its
complicated rituals, its sprawling folkways, its opulent art -- and
compress it into a single affirmation, we would find it saying:
You can have what you want.

This sounds promising, but it throws the problem back in our laps.
For what do we want? It is easy to give a simple answer --
not easy to give a good one. India has lived with this question for
ages and has her answer waiting. People, she says, want four things.

They begin by wanting pleasure. This is natural. We are all born with
built-in pleasure-pain reactors. If we ignored these, leaving our hands
on hot stoves or stepping out of second-story windows, we would soon
die. What could be more obvious, then, than to follow the promptings of
pleasure and entrust our lives to it?

Having heard -- for it is commonly alleged -- that India is ascetic and
other-worldly, and life-denying, we might expect her attitude toward
hedonists to be scolding, but it is not. To be sure, India has not made
pleasure her highest good, but this is different from condemning
enjoyment. To the person who wants pleasure, India says in effect:
Go after it -- there is nothing wrong with it; it is one of the four
legitimate ends of life. The world is awash with beauty and heavy with
sensual delights. Moreover, there are worlds above this one where
pleasures increase by powers of a million at each rung, and these
worlds, too, we shall experience in due course.
Like everything else, hedonism requires good sense. Not every impulse
can be followed with impunity. Small immediate goals must be sacrificed
for long-range gains, and impulses that would injure others must be
curbed to avoid antagonism and remorse. Only the stupid will lie, steal,
or cheat for immediate profit, or succumb to addictions. But as long as
the basic rules of morality are obeyed, you are free to seek all the
pleasure you want. Far from condemning pleasure, Hindu texts house
pointers on how to enlarge its scope. To simple people who seek pleasure
almost exclusively, Hinduism presents itself as little more than a
regimen for ensuring health and prosperity; while at the other end of
the spectrum, for sophisticates, it elaborates a sensual aesthetic that
shocks in its explicitness. If pleasure is what you want, do not
suppress the desire. Seek it intelligently.

This India says, and waits. It waits for the time -- it will come to
everyone, though not to everyone in one's present life -- when one
realizes that pleasure is not all that one wants.
The reason everyone eventually comes to this discovery is not because
pleasure is wicked, but because it is too trivial to satisfy one's
total nature. Pleasure is essentially private, and the self is too small
an object for perpetual enthusiasm.
Søren Kierkegaard tried for a while what he called the aesthetic
life, which made enjoyment the guiding principle, only to experience its
radical failure, which he described in Sickness Unto Death.
"In the bottomless ocean of pleasure," he wrote in his
Journal, "I have sounded in vain for a spot to cast an
anchor. I have felt the almost irresistible power with which one
pleasure drags another after it, the kind of adulterated enthusiasm
which it is capable of producing, the boredom, the torment which follow."
Even playboys -- a type seldom credited with profundity -- have been
known to conclude, as one did recently, that "The glamour of yesterday
I have come to see as tinsel." Sooner or later everyone wants to
experience more than a kaleidoscope of momentary pleasures, however
delectable.

When this time comes the individual's interests usually shift to the
second major goal in life, which is worldly success with its three prongs
of wealth, fame, and power. This too is a worthy goal, to be neither
scorned nor condemned. Moreover, its satisfactions last longer, for
(unlike pleasure) success is a social achievement, and as such it
involves the lives of others. For this reason it commands a scope and
importance that pleasure cannot boast.

This point does not have to be argued for a contemporary Western
audience. The Anglo-American temperament is not voluptuous. Visitors from
abroad do not find English-speaking peoples enjoying life a great deal,
or much bent doing so -- they are too busy. Being enamored not of
sensualism but of success, what takes arguing in the West is not that
achievement's rewards exceed those of the senses but that success too has
its limitations -- that "What is the worth?" does not come down to
"How much has he got?"

India acknowledges that drives for power, position, and possessions run
deep. Nor should they be disparaged per se. A modicum of worldly success
is indispensable for supporting a household and discharging civic duties
responsibly. Beyond this minimum, worldly achievements confer dignity
and self-respect. In the end, however, these rewards too have their term.
For they all harbor limitations that we can detail:

1. Wealth, fame, and power are exclusive, hence competitive, hence
precarious. Unlike mental and spiritual values, they do not multiply when
shared; they cannot be distributed without diminishing one's own portion.
If I own a dollar, that dollar is not yours; while I am sitting on a
chair, you cannot occupy it. Similarly with fame and power. The idea of a
nation in which everyone is famous is a contradiction in terms; and if
power were distributed equally, no one would be powerful in the sense in
which we customarily use the word. From the competitiveness of these
goods to their precariousness is a short step. As other people want them
too, who knows when success will change hands?

2. The drive for success is insatiable. A qualification is needed here,
for people do get enough money, fame, and power. It is when they make
these things their chief ambition that their lusts cannot be satisfied.
For these are not the things people really want, and people can never
get enough of what they do not really want. In Hindu idiom, "To try to
extinguish the drive with riches with money is like trying to quench a
fire by pouring butter over it."

The West, too, knows this point. "Poverty consists, not in the decrease
of one's possessions, but in the increase of one's greed," wrote Plato,
and Gregory Nazianzen, a theologian, concurs: "Could you from all the
world all wealth procure, more would remain, whose lack would leave you
poor." "Success is a goal without a satiation point," a psychologist
has recently written, and sociologists who studied the midwestern town
found "both business men and working men running for dear life in the
business of making the money they earn keep pace with the even more
rapid growth of their subjective wants." It was from India that the
West appropriated the parable of the donkey driver who kept his beast
moving by dangling before it a carrot attached to a stick that was fixed
to its own harness.

3. The third problem with worldly success is identical with that of
hedonism. It too centers meaning in the self, which proves to be too
small for perpetual enthusiasm. Neither fortune nor station can obscure
the realization that one lacks so much else. In the end everyone wants
more from life than a country home, a sports car, and posh vacations.

4. The final reason why worldly success cannot satisfy us completely is
that its achievements are ephemeral. Wealth, fame, and power do not
survive bodily death -- "You can't take it with you," as we routinely
say. And since we cannot, this keeps these things from satisfying us
wholly, for we are creatures who can envision eternity and must
instinctively rue by contrast the brief purchase on time that worldly
success commands.

Before proceeding to the other two things that Hinduism sees people
wanting, it will be well to summarize the ones considered thus far.
Hindus locate pleasure and success on the Path of Desire.
They use this phrase because the personal desires of the individual
have thus far been foremost in charting life's course. Other goals lie
ahead, but this does not mean that we should berate these preliminaries.
Nothing is gained by repressing desires wholesale or pretending that we
do not have them. As long as pleasure and success is what we think we
want, we should seek them, remembering only the provisos of prudence and
fair play.

The guiding principle is not to turn from desire until desire turns from
you, for Hinduism regards the objects of the Path of Desire as if they
were toys. If we ask ourselves whether there is anything wrong with toys,
our answer must be: On the contrary, the thought of children without them
is sad. Even sadder, however, is the prospect of adults who fail to
develop interests more significant than dolls and trains. By the same
token, individuals whose development is not arrested will move through
delighting in success and the senses to the point where their attractions
have been largely outgrown.

But what greater attractions does life afford? Two, say the Hindus. In
contrast with the Path of Desire, the constitute the Path of Renunciation.

The word renunciation has a negative ring, and India's frequent use of
it has been one of the factors in earning for it the reputation of being
a life-denying spoilsport. But renunciation has two faces. It can stem
from disillusionment and despair, the feeling that it's not worthwhile
to extend oneself; but equally it can signal the suspicion that life
holds more than one is now experiencing. Here we find the back-to-nature
people -- who renounce affluence to gain freedom from social rounds and
the glut of things -- but this is only the beginning. If renunciation
always entails the sacrifice of a trivial now for a more promising
yet-to-be, religious renunciation is like that of athletes who resist
indulgences that could deflect them from their all-consuming goal.
Exact opposite of disillusionment, renunciation in this second mode is
evidence that the life force is strongly at work.

We must never forget that Hinduism's Path of Renunciation comes after
the Path of Desire. If people could be satisfied by following their
impulses, the thought of renunciation would never arise. Nor does it
occur only to those who have failed on the former path -- the
disappointed lover who enters a monastery or nunnery to compensate.
We can agree with the disparagers that for such people renunciation is
a salvaging act -- the attempt to make the best of personal defeat.
What forces us to listen attentively to Hinduism's hypothesis is the
testimony of those who stride the Path of Desire famously and still
find themselves wishing for more than it offers. These people -- not
the ones who renounce but the ones who see nothing to renounce for --
are the world's real pessimists. For to live, people must believe in
that for the sake of which they live. As long as they sense no
futility in pleasure and success, they can believe that those are worth
living for. But if, as Tolstoy points out in his Confessions,
they can no longer believe in the finite, they will believe in the
infinite or they will die.

Let us be clear. Hinduism does not say that everyone in his or her
present life will find the Path of Desire wanting. For against a vast
time scale, Hinduism draws a distinction the West too is familiar with --
that between chronological and psychological age. Two people, both forty-six, are the same age chronologically, but psychologically one may be still a child and the other an adult. The Hindus extend this distinction to cover multiple life spans, a point we shall take up explicitly when we come to the idea of reincarnation. As a consequence we shall find men and women who play the game of desire with all the zest of nine-year-old cops and robbers; though they know little else, they will die with the sense of having lived to the full and enter their verdict that life is good.
But equally, there will be others who play this game as ably, yet find its laurels paltry. Why the difference? The enthusiasts, say the Hindus, are caught in the flush of novelty, whereas the others, having played the game over and over again, seek other worlds to conquer.

We can describe the typical experience of this second type. The world's visible rewards still attract them strongly. They throw themselves into enjoyment, enlarging their holdings and advancing their status. But neither the pursuit nor the attainment brings true happiness. Some of the things they want they fail to get, and this makes them miserable. Some they get and hold onto for a while, only to have them suddenly snatched away, and again they are miserable. Some they both get and keep, only to find that (like the Christmases of many adolescents) they do not bring the joy that was expected. Many experiences that thrilled on first encounter pall on the hundredth. Throughout, each attainment seems to fan the flames of new desire; none satisfies fully; and all, it becomes evident, perish with time. Eventually, there comes over them the suspicion that they are caught on a treadmill, having to run faster and faster for rewards that mean less and less.

When that suspicion dawns and they find themselves crying, "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity!" it may occur to them that the problem stems from the smallness of the self they have been scrambling to serve. What if the focus of their concern were shifted? Might not becoming a part of a larger, more significant whole relieve life of its triviality?

That question announces the birth of religion. For though in some watered-down sense there may be a religion of self-worship, true religion begins with the quest for meaning and value beyond self-centeredness. It renounces the ego's claims to finality.

But what is this renunciation for? This question brings us to the two signposts on the Path of Renunciation. The first of these reads "the community," as the obvious candidate for something greater than ourselves. In supporting at once our own life and the lives of others, the community has an importance no single life can command. Let us, then, transfer our allegiance to it, giving its claims priority over our own.

This transfer marks the first great step in religion. It produces the religion of duty, after pleasure and success the third great aim of life in the Hindu outlook. Its power over the mature is tremendous. Myriads have transformed the will-to-get into the will-to-give, the will-to-win into the will-to-serve. Not to triumph but to do their best -- to acquit themselves responsibly, whatever the task at hand -- has become their prime objective.

Hinduism abounds in directives to people who would put their shoulder to the social wheel. It details duties appropriate to age, temperament, and social status. These will be examined in subsequent sections. Here we need only repeat what was said in connection with pleasure and success: Duty, too, yields notable rewards, only to leave the human spirit unfulfilled.
Its rewards require maturity to be appreciated, but given maturity, they are substantial. Faithful performance of duty brings respect and gratitude from one's peers. More important, however, is the self-respect that comes from doing one's part. But in the end even these rewards prove insufficient. For even when time turns community into history, history, standing alone, is finite and hence ultimately tragic. It is tragic not only because it must end -- eventually history, too, will die -- but in its refusal to be perfected. Hope and history are always light-years apart.
The final human good must lie elsewhere.

What People Really Want

"There comes a time," Aldous Huxley wrote, "when one asks even of Shakespeare, even of Beethoven, is this all?"

It is difficult to think of a sentence that identifies Hinduism's attitude toward the world more precisely. The world's offerings are not bad. By and large they are good. Some of them are good enough to command our enthusiasm for many lifetimes. Eventually, however, every human being comes to realize with Simone Weil that "there is no true good here below, that everything that appears to be good in this world is finite, limited, wears out, and once worn out, leaves necessity exposed in all its nakedness." When this point is reached, one finds oneself asking even of the best this world can offer, "Is this all?"

This is the moment Hinduism has been waiting for. As long as people are content with the prospect of pleasure, success, or service, the Hindu sage will not be likely to disturb them beyond offering some suggestions as to how to proceed more effectively. The critical point in life comes when these things lose their original charm and one finds oneself wishing that life had something more to offer. Whether life does or does not hold more is probably the question that divides people more sharply than any other.

The Hindu answer to the question is unequivocal.
Life holds other possibilities.
To see what these are we must return to the question of what people want.
Thus far, Hinduism would say, we have been answering this question too superficially. Pleasure, success, and duty are never humanity's ultimate goals. At best they are means that we assume will take us in the direction of what we really want. What we really want are things that lie at a deeper level.

First, we want being. Everyone wants to be rather than not be;
normally, no one wants to die.
A World War II correspondent once described the atmosphere of a room containing thirty-five men who had been assigned to a bombing mission from which, on average, only one-fourth returned. What he felt in those men, the correspondent noted, was not so much fear as
"a profound reluctance to give up the future."
Their sentiment holds for us all, the Hindus would say. None of us take happily the thought of a future in which we shall have no part.

Second, we want to know. Whether it be
scientists probing the secrets of nature,
a typical family watching the nightly news, or neighbors catching up on local gossip, we are insatiably curious. Experiments have shown that even monkeys will work longer and harder to discover what is on the other side of a trapdoor than they will for either food or sex.

The third thing people seek is joy, a feeling tone that is the opposite of frustration, futility, and boredom.

These are what people really want. To which we should add, if we are to complete the Hindu answer, that they want these things infinitely. A distinctive feature of human nature is its capacity to think of something that has no limits: the infinite. This capacity affects all human life, as de Chirico's painting "Nostalgia of the Infinite" poignantly suggests.
Mention any good, and we can imagine more of it -- and, so imagining, want that more. Medical science has doubled life expectancy, but has living twice as long made people readier to die? To state the full truth, then, we must say that what people would really like to have is infinite being, infinite knowledge, and infinite bliss. They might settle for less, but this is what they really want. To gather the wants into a single word, what people really want is liberation (moksha) -- release from the finitude that restricts us from the limitless being, consciousness, and bliss our hearts desire.

Pleasure, success, responsible discharge of duty, and liberation -- we have completed the circuit of what people think they want and what they want in actuality. This takes us back to the staggering conclusion with which our survey of Hinduism began. What people most want, that they can have.
Infinite being, infinite awareness, and infinite bliss are within their reach. Even so, the most startling statement yet awaits. Not only are these goods within people's reach, says Hinduism. People already possess them.

For what is a human being? A body? Certainly, but anything else?
A personality that includes mind, memories, and propensities that have derived from a unique trajectory of life-experiences? This, too, but anything more? Some say no, but Hinduism disagrees. Underlying the human self and animating it is a reservoir of being that never dies, is never exhausted, and is unrestricted in consciousness and bliss. This infinite center of every life, this hidden self or Atman, is no less than Brahman, the Godhead. Body, personality, and Atman-Brahman -- a human self is not completely accounted for until all three are noted.

But if this is true and we really are infinite in our being, why is this not apparent? Why do we not act accordingly? "I don't feel particularly unlimited today," one may be prompted to observer. "And my neighbor -- I haven't noticed his behavior to be exactly Godlike." How can the Hindu hypothesis withstand the evidence of the morning newspaper?

The answer, say the Hindus, lies in the depth at which the Eternal is buried under the almost impenetrable mass of distractions, false assumptions, and self-regarding instincts that comprise our surface selves. A lamp can be covered with dust and dirt to the point of obscuring its light completely. The problem life poses for the human self is to cleanse the dross of its being to the point where its infinite center can shine forth in full display.

Excerpts from the chapter on Hinduism in Huston Smith's The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions,
1991, Harper, San Francisco. (Revised and updated edition of The Religions of Man, originally published 1958.)